Lock him up? Democrats are pushing prosecution for Trump -- but those calls alarm some law enforcemen

[turbinetree]

Published 7 mins ago on June 18, 2019
By Travis Gettys

President Donald Trump — whose rallies are still punctuated with “lock her up” chants” — may face turnabout from his Democratic rivals.

Some Democratic candidates are openly threatening Trump with prosecution once he’s out of office, and those taunts are alarming to some law enforcement veterans, reported Politico.

“Presidents aren’t supposed to suggest there be investigations or prosecutions of particular people, let alone their political rivals,” said Matt Axelrod, a former Justice Department senior official under Obama. “President Trump has flagrantly and repeatedly violated that norm, but that doesn’t mean the norm has been obliterated.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said earlier this month that she preferred prosecution to impeachment, and she was soon joined by Democratic hopefuls Beto O’Rourke, Sen. Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg in recommending possible prosecution for Trump once he leaves the White House.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/lock-him-up-democrats-are-pushing-prosecution-for-trump-but-those-calls-alarm-some-law-enforcement-vets/

I agree with Harris, O'Rourke and Buttigieg.......................100%

[Iliyah]

1. It did not bother

law enforcement when Republicans were call for HRC to be locked up.

This article smells like RWers again . . .

fucked them.

[CrispyQ]

2. Really Matt Miller?

“You can see a case where an incoming [Democratic] president might not want a prosecution of Trump. It has the ability to blot out your entire agenda,” said Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman under Obama.

“It is too much to put the country through,” Miller added. “But such is life. People should just be happy he’s gone from the presidency at that point.”

Forty-five years of this attitude & lack of accountability by the dems is why the repubs think they can do whatever the fuck they want.

[trev]

3. Law enforcement's responsibility is to uphold the law.

If they can't do that, they should be removed from their jobs.

[Eyeball_Kid]

5. That IS a surprising comment. But Miller is right to point out that Trumpy just might get away

with everything.

But Pelosi will have had events in her life in which she could have called for the impeachment of two presidents on separate occasions, with good, solid evidence regarding each president, and she refused to drop the hammer. This will be her second time. She decides which is worse, an impeachment proceeding in which the president is debilitated at a minimum, or just "moving on" if/when the Dems take control of government. I think we SHOULD go through the pain of an impeachment inquiry. It's the pain that we feel from being offended by Trumpy and the GOP. The pain is real, the offenses are real. If we walk away, we feel the pain of not being heard, of not feeling confident that the Rule of Law governs us all. In our lifetimes, we have seen Nixon, Bush 43, Clinton, and now the Trumpy, all getting impeached or deserving of impeachment. We want to see the exercise of accountability at the very top, or we can be easily persuaded in believing that the celebrated and wealthy do not live under the Rule of Law. We want to know if the laws work. We want to believe that corruption is on the wane. But we can't do that with Trumpy.

Pelosi hopes that a criminal prosecution of Trumpy after he leaves office will bring that catharsis. She should know that she has no control over what happens in a criminal prosecution, if at all. She DOES have control over calling for an impeachment inquiry, but she abdicates that duty. Either way, she makes NO DECISION. Hopefully, it's not her legacy.

[Recursion]

6. You're ignoring the likely outcome, acquittal

Which gets spun as "vindication"

[CrispyQ]

7. And if the House dems don't impeach he will run on "Even the dems don't think I'm guilty."

And in 2022 senate repubs can run on "I would have voted to impeach but the House dems never started the process." Count on it. The GOP are masters of capturing the narrative & twisting it to their advantage regardless of the situation. And the media will parrot it until it becomes truth.

The dems are damed if they do & damned if they don't. But I'm still of the opinion that the public needs to hear the evidence & an impeachment inquiry will force the media to report on it & not just on MSNBC or CNN. That said, I would wait until summer is over. Then when everyone is settling back in from vacation & going back to school, get to work & expose this fucking fraud.

[CrispyQ]

8. Good post.

And yes, he just might get away with everything. And his rotten spawn, too.

[Kid Berwyn]

10. Let's prefer to look forward.

And that’s how Bush and Cheney got away.

Pruneface and Poppy, too.

[stillcool]

4. boy, oh boy...

the contrast when writing about the two parties is striking. Can't have those Democrats saying they would like to see Trump prosecuted....Oh no....because...

Axelrod and other law enforcement veterans feared those political appeals could undermine the Justice Department’s impartiality.

What country are these people living in?

[Caliman73]

9. They miss the glaring differences.

Hillary Clinton was investigated several times including by the FBI and by Republican lead Senate and House committees. What did they find? Well, Comey for the FBI said (in an act of political cowardice) that Hillary had been "careless", but there was no prosecution because there was no evidence. The Republican party after all their investigations came up with NOTHING, oh but if they only launched one or two, or ten more inquiries, they'd have found something ... right? Bullshit. Why hasn't Trump looked into Hillary Clinton? He's been in charge of the FBI and other investigatory agencies for over 2 years. He knows that he is full of shit and would find NOTHING so he only uses the threat to keep his brain dead followers chanting "lock her up".


NOW, let's look at Trump. The Mueller Report said, a lack of clear cut evidence on conspiracy directly involving the president and Russia, but BECAUSE so much evidence was destroyed and people lied that he couldn't build an iron clad case. Volume 2. at least 10 instances where Trump obstructed justice but he is barred from directly indicting him. We already have several TOP people in Trump's circle that have been convicted for crimes related to their activities with or for Trump.

Sorry but those guys are wrong. If you do not prosecute criminals because "it might upset norms" then the country isn't worth having.